Live performance version of "BOUND" from my Ruiner Severhead project.
It sounds remarkably like the recorded version. That's cuz the support tracks are directly from my original multi-track recording. The effects (pitch-shifting & my "smoke & cloud" delays) used on the fretless bass are also the same.
Performance wise - I prefer this take over the "studio" version in many ways. I think I was just more in touch with the vibe of the piece here than on the recording.
I used to be opposed to this kind of "backing tracks" performance thing.
But then I realized it's a tremendous creative tool.
I love working in the studio AND performing. It would be a waste to limit my studio or performance ambitions with some arbitrary rules about what is and isn't "allowed" in either sphere.
That's how I roll. ;)
To upload this video - I used a service called Tubemogul. It's a service that lets you upload a video once and then deliver it to several different video sites with a few clicks. You have to set up accounts on all the sites ahead of time though.
After the jump is several versions of this video from the various sites it was uploaded to.
It's pretty clearly how each service renders the video and it's relative quality.
Check it out if you're curious about that kind of thing.
Recently, on twitter and myspace I've been tossing out inflammatory bombs about fender basses. Obviously, this is kind of fun for me because the responses are predictable. And who doesn't enjoy a little action/reaction predictability now & again?
But there's a little more going on beneath the surface. I'm not sure when it started, but I've been getting into a retro kick recently. I think pushing the technology angle so hard has me longing for the organic. I've started appreciating retro production & instrument sounds.
Oh - I should probably point out that I've never owned a Fender bass. When I got back into playing in 04, getting an instrument that to my mind was so common, so pedestrian and predictable was the last thing I wanted to do. Musically, I wasn't interested in doing anything where the answer was - "Fender Jazz Bass".
However - part of my new appreciation for retro sounds had me noticing older and "classic" bass sounds. These are sounds that I considered so common I never really paid much attention to them directly - even as a bass player. I always wrote it off as "The Big Dumb Fender Sound".
Among other experiments in retro, I decided to try out the fender thing. I got a lefty 2008 American P Bass. At first I was seriously underwhelmed. It was such a simple instrument. The neck felt clumsy and, well, dumb. It sounded, well, dumb. I played around with it and thought - "I'm sending it back. This thing is lame - I don't get it".
One morning before work - I loaded up some "real" drum sound drum patterns, pulled out the P bass, hit record and started playing for a few minutes.
It was kinda fun to play "bass" with a "real bass". I hadn't turned the strings upside down yet so I was forced to play simply. As an aside - the downside to having above average technical abilities is that it's really hard not to use it all the time. If you have this affliction - turn the strings upside down. ;)
So off to work I went and forgot all about it. When I came home that night, as I was setting up my laptop - I pressed play on the material I recorded in the morning and was instantly struck by what I heard. It was THAT sound. The classic P Bass sound, with ME playing it!
Ok - I know this sounds geeky - but I've NEVER sounded like that before. It was wild. I had played a mix of finger-style & pick. The pick stuff just blew me away with how authentic it sounded. The bass just seemed to sit in so perfectly with the drums - no eq was needed.
I finally "got it". For the first time ever - I appreciated the fender P for being the fender P. I pretty much decided right there I was going to keep the bass.
I may not use it that much - but it's the most common electric bass sound in pop music and it's important to have if for no other reason than accessibility. I began to realize that perhaps some of the Ruiner Severhead material might have sounded more accessible had I used at least 1 easily recognizable bass sound. P bass with a pick and some overdrive is - really friggin sweet.
At that point I started to re-evaluate my entire view of these basses. I thought if the P bass sounded good - maybe I should have a jazz bass also to round out my "basic bass sounds" inventory. Instead of going the same route as I had with the new AMERICAN P bass, I hunted down a used lefty made in mexico jazz for pretty cheap.
The build quality difference between a new American P and a used MIM jazz is noticeable - but not tremendous. Not nearly the difference between my MTD535 and the Kingston which I would classify as severe.
Sound wise - the jazz sounded like a fender jazz - but not as WOW to me as the P bass.
So I thought I'd change the pickups. I tossed in a set of Nordstrand Js. The before & after recordings I did revealed the stock pups were voiced hotter, and a littler higher in the frequency range with very little sub frequencies but kinda closed sounding up top.
The Nordstrands were lower output, voiced a little lower frequency and were a little more open sounding.
Anyway - I quickly realized the it's the Jazz sound that I'm not really a fan of. I don't hate it - but it just doesn't speak to me. The P bass has character - a personality. The Jazz seems.... well - that's the "common" sound I guess I always complain about.
But again - in the mix - it sits nicely and fills the bass role wonderfully. The fender sound plays nice with everything else that's going on. I've noticed this when artists come through the radio station. I never have to do much with fenders sound wise - just a little compression and move on to the vocal or whatever.
So mea culpa. I get Fender now. At least as a palette of sounds that are pretty important in pop music.
These are sounds I've been uninterested in as I pursued my solo bass work. But now as I explore a wider range of musical ideas I'm glad to have these sounds at my disposal. It's also great fun to play a 4 string. It's all so - familiar. I guess I didn't realize how far off the "bass" reservation I had gone with my boutique, piccolo, solo bass concept.
And at the end of the day - I'm still a bass player and I still love the sound of a good bass.
BTW - I sold one of my pedulla fretless basses to grab these fenders. I know. A few weeks ago that would have seemed insane to me. But I still have a killer pedulla. Now I have some of the most classic bass sounds too.
the most studio wankery piece of the Ruiner Severhead project is a tune called "Don't Tase Me, Bro!"
Massive studio trickery, heavy use of samples and all kinds of brutal processing. I think the session easily topped 30 tracks, and had GIGS of raw material - mostly noise made from horrible bass abuse. ;)
I finally figured out how to play it live - by myself. Just as noisy.
Check it out.
grab the original track - for free - to kids - no forms to fill out.
Easily, the most exciting thing for me right now is knowing that no matter how far I push my studio & production vision - I can still find a way to bring it to a live environment in a way that goes beyond mere "backing tracks".
I've been working on building a live rig I can use to perform the ruiner material live.
But it also must allow me to manipulate and loop sound in real time combined with pre-recorded elements & samples.
This video is an overview of the very beginning stages of my experiments.
runtime - 8:41
feedback always welcome!
[UPDATE -5.22.08]
Based on a few comments and emails from you guys on this most recent video about the "direction" my music is taking, I want to address a few things.
It's interesting to know (flattering actually) that some people are concerned I might be giving up on solo bass. I'm not. My taste in music runs pretty wide.
Some time ago, in another post, I mentioned that in addition to solo bass, I wanted to do a hard rock/industrial type project (done: ruiner severhead) a "jeff schmidt band" kind of project, a downtempo electronic project, and some avant garde experimental stuff. Plus remain open to whatever other ideas pop up along the way.
Currently, I'm trying to figure out the technology that will enable me to perform this kind of music in a compelling way as a soloist. That's what you see in the video. This process requires time. Just as getting into altered tunings took a great deal of time to get comfortable with - working with new tools - controllers, software etc... will too.
Because there is a limited amount of time available to me, I have to set priorities.
So, I decided to pause work on another "proper" solo bass CD to make time available to getting some of these other skills "under my hands" - as the jazz cats like to say.
There are other reasons too. Creatively, I want to make sure my solo works evolve and grow. I don't want to make re-statements of things I've already said. Or have my concept remain beholden to old ideas and expectations. I feel the same way with any new ruiner severhead material.
It's just part of who I am. The artists I admire & respect most are the one's who push past what becomes easy for them to find new approaches and ideas.
RANDOM BRAIN FART:
Because I get into moods and shift my focus fairly regularly - I'm thinking of adapting an approach that matches my personality. Instead of looking at any of these projects as "ALBUMS" that require 11-13 tunes thus months of time each, I'll write and release the material as its completed. Tune by tune. Or maybe I'll release demos. Just have to figure out the best way to do that. Maybe through the podcast? Any way - all brain fart thoughts right now.
A few weeks ago I had dinner with my wife Valerie, and an entrepreneur who has become part of her vastly expanding network of inspiring people.
At one point, he asked me a few questions about my music.
These were not the kind of questions I am used to getting - what tunings do you use? why do you play upside down? who is your biggest influence? etc...
Instead, he wanted to know how many CD sales I get from having videos on YouTube.
I answered that there's no real way to know for sure. People arrive at my CD Baby page from all over the place. CD Baby only tells me the link they came from directly. So while the number of people that come directly from YouTube is low, it doesn't mean that Youtube wasn't in the chain that ultimately led a person to my CD Baby page.
Then he asked me who my "target audience" was. Target audience? Uhhhh I don't know.
I know it's mostly bass players who have bought my music and come out to see me play live. But I don't think I've targeted them intentionally.
I made my CD, Outre for me. Since it's solo bass I guess it's natural to think bass players would be most interested in it. But I've never really marketed it or sent it out to magazines for review etc.... Nor have I tried to expose it to wider audience.
Anyway - there were more questions like this. The kind of questions which only a business perspective would inspire. It caused me to think in a way I had not yet really considered.
The ultimate question his inquiry was really trying to answer was - "Is Solo Bass a business?" Or more specifically, is "Jeff Schmidt - Solo Bass" a business?
It's not something I'd ever asked myself seriously. I have only considered the art of it - never the commerce.
I didn't get back into music to find a way to make a living - but as a way to feed my soul. I need to create. I need to experiment, push boundaries & buttons and try new things and put it out into the world. If I can't do that, I get cranky.
This is an entirely different mindset from one that says - I need to create a product that appeals to lots of people.
Or is it?
Perhaps that's a false dichotomy.
Anyway - this kind of questioning has made me think differently about what I'm doing. Why I'm doing it. And WHO I'm doing it for.
It's pretty easy to see that most art would never happen if it were forced to meet the "Is this a business" test.
But I have a hard time believing that kind of thinking should be removed from the artistic process entirely.
Remember back here when I said you only need 10,000 fans to make your artistry work financially?
A really smart guy named Kevin Kelly doesn't agree.
In fact - he thinks we only need 1,000 fans.
But they have to be TRUE fans.
excerpt:
A True Fan is defined as someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce. They will drive 200 miles to see you sing. They will buy the super deluxe re-issued hi-res box set of your stuff even though they have the low-res version. They have a Google Alert set for your name. They bookmark the eBay page where your out-of-print editions show up. They come to your openings. They have you sign their copies. They buy the t-shirt, and the mug, and the hat. They can't wait till you issue your next work. They are true fans.
Fans - as defined when I was growing up - were distant admirers. We only dealt directly with the artist's WORK - but rarely if ever the artist themselves. We were not worthy of their time & attention.
Things are different now in my view.
While the Rolling Stones and other "celebrity" artists can stay hidden from their "fans" - the majority of artists can't and shouldn't. There is a limit to how accessible you can be - for sure.
But until you reach that point - why pretend you're the Rolling Stones and hide from "fans"?
I don't really want "fans". At least not in that old school artist/fan relationship that looks like "GOD / Sycophant". That's lame.
I'd rather have friends. The art should be there to brings us together. Not act as a barrier between artist and "fan".
Another way of looking at it: the TRUE fan Kevin Kelly is talking about really looks a whole lot more like a FRIEND.
As Im sure you guys know - there's almost unlimited choice in news and entertainment now. You can still listen to radio and watch TV to get an idea of what's new & cool. The problem with those mediums is 2 fold.
First - they are totally bound by time & space. There are a limited number of channels and a limited number of hours in the day you can broadcast so the presentation is always going to be limited. It's scarcity.
Second - only things that attract the widest possible audience get "time" on the network. It's great for mass appeal stuff like Michael Jackson & Spiderman movies - not so good with high quality stuff that's more niche in appeal.
Online blows that whole thing wide open. You no longer have to wait for the 6 O'Clock evening news to find out what's happening in the world (on the west coast at least - the evening news is already several hours old by the time it "airs") and you no longer have to wait for a radio station or MTV to play a song before you find out about it.
This is very very cool.
It gives indie musicians and artists the opportunity to be discovered like never before. Of course - when I say "be discovered" I'm not talking about BY the TV and Radio people. Of course that can happen. But they're still looking for the same mass appeal style material they always have.
What I'm really talking about is being discovered by music FANS. Fans that will tell other fans. That trusted source of fan to fan - friend to friend carries far more persuasive weight than an advertisement or a corporate marketing strategy.
But a new problem arises in the land of ubiquity. Too much stuff.
For example. I'm looking at the feeds in my RSS reader. I use Google Reader. It's so efficient that I've subscribed to almost 400 feeds. That's easily 1100 new posts per day. And while google reader makes it easy to sift through all that info - it's still too much to fully appreciate.
So what I do is look to a few trusted sources across several key areas of my interests.
These - incidentally are NOT the traditional "trusted sources" like CNN or The New York Times. They are people (like you) who have earned my TRUST - who have already digested some of that other material and now present it in a smaller more focused and easily consumable package.
In other words - they act as filters. As curators. They perform the same function as CNN or MTV - but on a much smaller scale and for much more focused interests.
I too am a curator of the information I consume with the "share" function of Google Reader. I simply mark items I find interesting and Google Reader posts them to a webpage accessible by anyone. It's not a definitive list of what's available online. It's a definitive list of what I find interesting online. My Google Reader Page.
How is this useful to you? If you like me, if you share interests, if you trust that I know the difference between quality items and shit - my shared items page is a really good resource. I scan 400 feeds a day and only share a dozen or so per day at most. THAT is curation.
What if we could do this with MUSIC? Well, we can't just yet. BUT -
Steve Lawson just launched a new use for our favorite new internet toy Twitter. It's called To The Left Of The Mainstream. It's a regular feed of music Steve finds interesting and worthy of your attention. Follow the TTLOTM feed HERE.
If you like Steve, and trust his taste it's worth following. And it's not just about following Steve - it's about ADDING to the conversation too. You can tell Steve about something - and if he likes it - BOOM it goes on his feed for others to find out about.
Why does it surprise anyone that networking is easier on a NETWORK where communication and information flows in synchronicity?
Curation and filtering are even MORE vital in the internet space because it's potential is nearly limitless. But unlike the old guard - the new filtering is NOT a top down affair. It's interactive. You can shout back at the TV & radio now - and they can hear you- if they choose to listen.
EVERYONE can become a filter.
When you look at what these online tools allow it's all ultimately about connecting with other people and sharing information and ideas. And music connects like nothing else.
How do you do it? By participating. By sharing items online, by engaging others and ADDING to the conversation. In fact - if you engage in conversations you can add value to - the whole space gets better and more useful for everyone.
BTW - it also helps establish your personal BRAND. That's an issue for another time as there is ALWAYS a "what's in it for me" element to the equation. The short answer is - a lot!
In a recent article for Fast Company magazine, Duncan Watts, network scientist at Columbia University turns upside down the entire idea of HOW certain trends & ideas gets lots of buzz and become a hit while others do not.
The answer? Something most musicians and artists already know.
It's not dependent on talent or merit. Buzz happens - or at least seems to happen almost randomly.
You can read the whole thing on Duncan's blog HERE.
But here's a particularly eye opening excerpt:
Watts wanted to find out whether the success of a hot trend was reproducible. For example, we know that Madonna became a breakout star in 1983. But if you rewound the world back to 1982, would Madonna break out again? To find out, Watts built a world populated with real live music fans picking real music, then hit rewind, over and over again.
Working with two colleagues, Watts designed an online music-downloading service. They filled it with 48 songs by new, unknown, and unsigned bands. Then they recruited roughly 14,000 people to log in. Some were asked to rank the songs based on their own personal preference, without regard to what other people thought. They were picking songs purely on each song's merit. But the other participants were put into eight groups that had "social influence": Each could see how other members of the group were ranking the songs.
Watts predicted that word of mouth would take over. And sure enough, that's what happened. In the merit group, the songs were ranked mostly equitably, with a small handful of songs drifting slightly lower or higher in popularity. But in the social worlds, as participants reacted to one another's opinions, huge waves took shape. A small, elite bunch of songs became enormously popular, rising above the pack, while another cluster fell into relative obscurity.
But here's the thing: In each of the eight social worlds, the top songs -- and the bottom ones -- were completely different.
For example, the song "Lockdown," by 52metro, was the No. 1 song in one world, yet finished 40 out of 48 in another. Nor did there seem to be any compelling correlation between merit and success. In fact, Watts explains, only about half of a song's success seemed to be due to merit.
"In general, the 'best' songs never do very badly, and the 'worst' songs never do extremely well, but almost any other result is possible," he says.
Why?
Because the first band to snag a few thumbs-ups in the social world tended overwhelmingly to get many more. And who received those crucial first votes seemed to be mostly a matter of luck.
Word of mouth and social contagion made big hits bigger. But they also made success more unpredictable. (And it's worth noting, no one in the social worlds had any more influence than anyone else.)
So yes, Watts figures, if you rewound the world to 1982, Madonna would likely remain a total unknown -- and someone else would have slipped into her steel-tipped corset. "You cannot predict in advance whether a band gets this huge cascade of popularity, because the social network is liable to throw up almost any result," he marvels.
Predictably, the music industry received the analysis -- "Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market," published in Science in 2006 -- with a cocked eyebrow. When Watts presented his findings to executives at a major record label last spring, the younger among them were reasonably receptive. They're accustomed to the unpredictability of hit-making online, so they can grasp the terrifying randomness of success.
But the older execs?
Watts laughs. "They were all like, 'I think it's bullshit. I'm still going to go with my gut,'" he recalls. "And I'm like, Okay, good luck to you. You're going to need it."
Lots of implications in this.
For one - I have shied away from pursuing, and publishing testimonials from other artists about me in promotion of myself.
Perhaps this is a mistake. Maybe getting thumbs up from an established community is an important signal to the market. I realize that rarely has an effect on me unless it's someone I really respect and trust. For the market at large though, it's probably way more important than I give it credit for.
The bass extremes contest certainly provided that to some degree. I've not even come close to trying to capitalize on that.
I also know my "win" there was totally a product of circumstance, of time & place. Sure talent played a roll. Roll the clock back and re-do the whole thing again and I'm 100% positive there would have been a different result.
Have you ever been in the right place @ the right time?
Any ideas on how to keep showing up at the right place at the right time with the right idea? Or is even thinking like that a complete waste of time?
• improve my video chops. the more I do it - the better I get
• improve ability to explain my process. even when I'm not entirely sure what the hell I'm doing
• to confront & overcome the fear of being exposed - of not being perfect
• perhaps make some of this weird music a bit more accessible by showing "how the sausage is made"
• to open up a space around my musical effort where conversations can happen, views are exchanged and ideas can be shared.
• it's simultaneously an ego boost & an ego check
most importantly.
• when all this music is done and recorded and available to the world as a complete artistic statement - I want there to be a bread crumb trail of how it all came about.
. . . when we didn't have every conceivable recording from every era and every genre available in some endless eat-what-you-can buffet, when we faced musical starvation and had to really hunt things down to satisfy our hunger, it spurred on much farther-reaching revelations.
That is why the last genuine innovations came at the dawn of rave in the late 80s, early 90s, and why from the dull thud of Britpop onwards, Alexis Petridis's well-named "consensus rock" has remained the proverbial colossus.
Sure, there is a galaxy of different configurations of what's gone before dressed up as innovation available at our fingertips. For instance, while before we would have tuned into the precious few John Peel hours on offer, now Dandelion Radio is continuing his legacy on a 24/7 basis.
We aren't merely spoiled for choice: the incessant gorging has catastrophic effects on artistic creativity.
There was an interview with bassist/electronica dude Tom Jenkison - aka Squarepusher going around a few months ago. In it he talked about the value he found in musical seclusion. Not listening to the latest, hippest sounds. He found it was the best way for him to arrive at his unique musical statement.
I can totally appreciate this.
On the one hand, being inspired by others is often what gets us into the game to begin with. But at a certain point - most of us need to let go of those influences and find our own way. There are several very accomplished artists whose music I enjoy - but simply stopped listening to so it won't influence me any more.
On the other hand, there's a great case to be made for how total musical "seclusion" can be a sure fire way to let the times leap frog you.
Almost quite naturally, I find that I go through phases of intense listening and seeking of inspiration in the works of others, followed by phases of not wanting to hear anything so that I can sit and hear what's happening in my head. I think I might be in that phase right now. ,-)
